Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 175 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ritesh Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Jitender Sharma

Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent legal errors and does not permit reappreciation of evidence. Admissions by an accused under Section 313 of the Code can corroborate prosecution evidence, and procedural irregularities in search and seizure do not vitiate a conviction unless they cause demonstrably material prejudice.

Headnote:(A) H.P. Excise Act - Section 39(1)(a) - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 313, 397 and 401 - Possession and transportation of liquor without valid documentation - Conviction and sentence - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - High Court as a revisional court is not an appellate court and scope of interference is extremely narrow - Jurisdiction is meant to set right a patent defect, error of jurisdiction or law, or perversity - It is impermissible for High Court to reappreciate evidence in absence of any perversity. (Paras 16-17)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Evidentiary value of statement of accused - Admission of guilt or recovery of items in statement under Section 313 can be taken into consideration by court to lend credence to prosecution evidence and may form part of the basis for conviction. (Paras 23-27)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 100(4) - Search and seizure - Non-association of independent witnesses - Chance recovery during routine patrolling - Failure to comply with provisions of Section 100(4) is not per se fatal to prosecution case where no prejudice is caused to accused and recovery is proved otherwise. (Paras 28-37)

Facts of the case:
A police party intercepted a vehicle and upon search, recovered large quantities of liquor of various brands. The occupants failed to produce valid permits or documents for transportation. The prosecution examined witnesses, and the accused, in their statements under Section 313 of the Code, admitted to being in the vehicle and the fact of recovery of liquor. The Trial Court convicted the accused and the Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the accused's admissions during their examination under Section 313 of the Code supported the prosecution's case. The court further held that in instances of chance recovery during patrolling, failure to associate independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution, and internal consistency in police testimony is sufficient, especially when the integrity of the case property is verified by chemical analysis reports.

Issues: Whether the High Court in revision can reappreciate evidence; whether non-compliance with the search and seizure protocols under the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates the trial; and whether the statement of an accused under Section 313 can be used to support a conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors and does not permit the reappreciation of evidence unless there is manifest perversity. Admissions made by an accused under Section 313, even if not on oath, are valid pieces of evidence that, when consistent with the prosecution’s case, corroborate the guilt of the accused. Procedural irregularities in search and seizure do not render a trial void unless the accused can demonstrate prejudice, particularly in cases of chance recovery where official witness testimony is found credible.

Result: Revision dismissed.

Table of Content
1. scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 397/401 crpc. (Para 17 , 18)
2. principles for appreciating ocular evidence and handling minor contradictions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. use of admissions in section 313 crpc statements to corroborate prosecution evidence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. non-fatal nature of non-compliance with section 100(4) crpc and absence of independent witnesses. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. integrity of case property and proof of non-tampering. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. final evaluation of evidence and order of dismissal. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present revision against the judgment dated 24.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) and order of sentence dated 10.04.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, H.P. were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that the police presented a challan against the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court) for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 39 (1) (a) of the H.P. Excise Act . It was asserted that ASI Sandeep Kumar (PW8), ASI Prem Singh (PW5), Constable Mann Singh (PW1) and HHG Sanjay Kumar stopped an Alto car bearing registration No. HP-28-9798 at Sidhpur on 31.10.2014 at about 7:15 PM. Sanjay Kumar was driving the car, and Nek Ram was sitting in it. The police officials asked the accused, Sanjay Kumar, to produce the documents, but he refused. The police searched the car based on a suspicion and recovered 36 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) bearing Mark ‘Green label’, 24 bottles of IMFL bearing mark ‘Royal Stag’, 24 pints of IMFL bearing mark ‘Officers Choice’, 12 bottles of beer, 48 bottles of Country Liquor bearing mark ‘Una no.1’ and 71 bottles of Country Liquor bearing mark ‘Dabang No.1’. The police demanded the documents for transporting the liquor, but the accused could not produce any documents. The police obtained the samples and sealed the sample bottles and remaining bottles with seal impression ‘H’. Sample seal (Ext.PW1/B) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The liquor was seized vide memo (Ext.PW2/A). Rukka (Ext.PW8/A) was prepared and was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext.PW8/B) was prepared. ASI Sandeep Kumar (PW8) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW8/C) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. The samples were sent to SFSL, Junga, and a report (Ext.PW8/E) was issued. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their versions, and upon completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, they were charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 39 (1) (a) of the H.P. Excise Act , to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Constable Maan Singh (PW1), ASI Prem Singh (PW5) and ASI Sandeep Kumar (PW8) were the members of the police party. Constable Karam Singh (PW2) witnessed the recovery. Constable Vinod Kumar (PW3) was working as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. HHC Dina Nath (PW4) carried the case property to CTL, Kandaghat. Rakesh Kumar (PW6) did not support the prosecution's case. HC Vipin (PW7) proved the entry in the daily diary. SHO Jagdish Chand (PW9) signed the FIR and resealed the case property.

The accused, in their statements

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLARakesh Kainthla, JSanjay Kumar – AppellantVersusState of H.P. – RespondentCr. Revision No. 175 of 2026

Cases Referred (20)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 175 of 2026